apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

268 EPISTLES OF S. IGNATIUS.
Ussher discovered some affinities with Arianism, others with Apollinarianism
(p. Ixxxv sq, cviii sq). On the other hand Bunsen {Ignatius
V. Antiochien etc. p. 205) is doubtful whether either Arian or Apoliinarian
language can be traced in him. Cotelier was inclined to maintain
his orthodoxy {Pair. Apost. 11. p. 43).
It is much easier to ascertain this writer's antipathies than his
sympathies. His polemic
is aimed directly against the teaching of
Marcellus and of his pupil Photinus. There can be no reasonable
doubt that this is the object of Magn. 6 (comp. Smyri. 3), where
he maintains the existence of the Logos before and after the present
order of things (see in. p. 169). So again in a later passage
in the
same epistle {Magn. 8),
where the genuine Ignatius had used an expression
almost identical with the language in which Marcellus clothed his
doctrine (see 11. p. 126 sq), our Ignatian writer so alters the text before
him as to make it a direct refutation of Marcellus, and this refutation is
couched in words closely resembling and apparently borrowed from
those of Eusebius when dealing with this same heretic (see in. p. 170 sq).
So far we see clearly. It is only when we try
to realise his own
position that the difficulty begins.
The main arguments in support of his Arianism are these, (i) He
betrays his heretical leanings in the alterations which he introduces
into the Christological passages of the genuine Ignatius. Two examples
{Ephes. I, 18) have been mentioned already; but inasmuch as in these
cases the original text seems to savour of theopaschitism, the alterations
might have been introduced in the interests of the strictest orthodoxy.
Other examples however occur, where this defence will not hold ; e.g.
Sniyrn. i 'Ir;o-ow Hpio-rov tov ©eov rov outcus k.t.A., altered into rov ©eov
Kox TraTepa tov K.vpLov iqfxwv 'Itjctov XpicToii tov 8t' avTOv outods k.t.X., and
Ephes. inscr. tou Trarpos Kat 'Ir/crov X/dicttou tov ©eoil )][xwv, altered into
060V Trarpos kol K.vpLov 'qfxwv 'Irjcrov Xpto-To{! tov auiTrjpos r]/xwv (comp.
J^om. inscr., 3).
The force of this argument however is considerably
weakened by the fact, which will be noticed hereafter (p. 271), that
frequently elsewhere he deliberately assigns to Jesus Christ the name of
God, which in these passages he seems to withhold. (2)
He is careful
to distinguish between the Father as ayeVrT/ros and the Son as yevFT/Tos
(see above, p. 255). This however proves nothing. If indeed Zahn
had been right in supposing that in the age when this Ignatian pretender
wrote the terms yevvr^rds
and yevTjrds, ay eVvr/ro and dyevi]T0